On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Martin wrote:
Martin wrote:
I'll have to withdraw it.
I have no idea how I compiled an exe that actually did not crash when
dumping a stack (yes I had one.). but the patch doesn't work.
I had that right,, just the debugger confused me the way it displayed the
On 14 Nov 2009, at 11:16, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I don't think that the thread-safety is something to worry about at this
time; As you remark, the code was already not thread-safe. But it is
something to keep in mind.
At the very least this bug should be documented, and a {$warning
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 14 Nov 2009, at 11:16, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I don't think that the thread-safety is something to worry about at this time;
As you remark, the code was already not thread-safe. But it is something to
keep in mind.
At the very least this
On 14 Nov 2009, at 11:30, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Jonas Maebe wrote:
At the very least this bug should be documented, and a {$warning ...} should
be added at the appropriate place in the source code so that someone
interested in fixing it can do that right away
On 14 Nov 2009, at 12:19, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Jonas Maebe wrote:
I can't follow here. There was an undocumented problem in a unit, and now
that it has been identified and sort of made worse, there is no need to tell
our users about it?
Well, IMHO without
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 14 Nov 2009, at 12:19, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Jonas Maebe wrote:
I can't follow here. There was an undocumented problem in a unit, and now that
it has been identified and sort of made worse, there is no need to tell our
Martin wrote:
I'll have to withdraw it.
I have no idea how I compiled an exe that actually did not crash when
dumping a stack (yes I had one.). but the patch doesn't work.
I had that right,, just the debugger confused me the way it displayed
the values.
Attached patch works here, and
